TFA was talking about the rise of libertarianism inside the GOP. Right now the party is heading for a split. The social conservatard theocrats that have run the party for nearly 20 years and want to make the GOP MORE socially conservative vs. the social liberals/fiscal conservatives that want to bring the GOP into the 21st century.

No matter what happens, it will be amusing to watch the GOP implode. I'll get the popcorn.

I can't say I would hail the implosion of either party. You need only to look as far as Virginia to see how sloppy the dems will get when the republicans aren't credible. The republicans put up Cuccinelli? That guy who has attacked the university and fought for transvaginal ultrasounds and against sodomy? That'll be easy, said the dems, who have we got that we owe a favor? Out pops Terry McAulliffe, in whom I have barely more confidence than Cuccinelli. No, it's better for all of us if neither's a joke. Alas, in many respects, they both are.

\Also see the 2004 D presidential ticket. Kerry was respectable enough, but John Edwards? Did he even incline a single state towards D? For instance, Dick Gephardt would have stood a meaningful chance to deliver Missouri or Iowa. Edwards didn't even take NC, and the D's won, and we got four more years of simple Bush. Each party is more than willing to stoop low. It's best not to hope that they do.

astinkywind:Subby doesn't know what a Libertarian is. *facepalm* did he even read the artical.

and most of the people commenting in this thread do not know what Libertarians, Liberals, or Conservatives are. They just think they do and then issue forth hyperbolic statements in some attempt to at once make someone or group of people with possibly opposing views from themselves look like idiots and themselves look like brilliant political philosophers with all the correct answers.

mithras_angel:LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

Exception Collection:I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.

You are in the low percentile of what most socialists believe. For most, a safely net that gives you a minimal standard of living is not "fair". We are paying a lot more than what would constitute your "necessities of life". Too many on the left want taxes to be punitive instead of what they should be, simply a way for government to raise revenues. Pass the fair tax and make the amount of tax rebate that each person gets a level that will allow them to live off of it at a minimal standard of living, and it would take away the incentive to do nothing and sit around collecting welfare. You'd be guaranteed the minimum amount of money, and it wouldn't be at risk of being taken away if you decided to better your life and work a little. There'd be no hidden taxes, and no penalties for making "too much" money, and no reason to squirrel your money away in useless tax shelters.

Exception Collection:I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.

Everyone is somewhere on the continuum from ultimate libertarian (anarchist) to ultimate socialist (communist/Marxist).

Whether you call yourself (or are called by others) depends on how your place on the continuum compares to where the country is on the continuum. The US is already somewhat socialist (very progressive tax structure, social safety net, etc). That's not bad, "socialist" shouldn't be considered a bad word.

Unless you oppose any aspects of the social safety net, public libraries, public schools, publicly funded ire departments, etc etc, you are at least partly socialist.

Qellaqan:I can't say I would hail the implosion of either party. You need only to look as far as Virginia to see how sloppy the dems will get when the republicans aren't credible. The republicans put up Cuccinelli? That guy who has attacked the university and fought for transvaginal ultrasounds and against sodomy? That'll be easy, said the dems, who have we got that we owe a favor? Out pops Terry McAulliffe, in whom I have barely more confidence than Cuccinelli. No, it's better for all of us if neither's a joke. Alas, in many respects, they both are.

The only reason I'd look forward to the split is so I could enjoy the marginalization of the social conservatives that have run the party for the last 20 years. They think the reason the GOP has been losing is because they aren't conservative enough. Despite what liberal farkers may think, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama and the Democratic party...unfortunately, the GOP can't find them with a road map.

Usurper4:mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

Yes and no.

I'm not a fan of Barbara Boxer, by any means. I disagree with her on a number of policy issues. But I don't say she's not a Democrat. I say "she's not my kind of Democrat/liberal", and if someone challenged her who had a platform that was any good*, I'd back him... but I don't say "she's not one of us", though others may.

With libertarians, because each one has their own variation on what it means to be a libertarian, regularly takes the position that if they're not in 99% agreement with them, then that other person isn't a "real libertarian".

It comes down to a national platform. Both the Republican and Democratic party have platforms - sets of policy positions that they can point to and can say, "we believe in this". Sure, the Log Cabin Republicans vary off the main, as do the Blue Dog Democrats, but they've both got a baseline that they start from.

Libertarians don't have a baseline that that they, ~as a party~, can really point to and say, "this is what a majority of us believe, and this is how it should be implemented".

People bring up that "types of libertarians" comic regularly, and it is, at least in this case, much more accurate than they would care to admit. With that many divisions, they can't make an effective platform.

/*I'd run against her, but I'd have no chance, and would lose my job in the process if I did run.

MarkEC:Exception Collection: I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.

You are in the low percentile of what most socialists believe. For most, a safely net that gives you a minimal standard of living is not "fair". We are paying a lot more than what would constitute your "necessities of life". Too many on the left want taxes to be punitive instead of what they should be, simply a way for government to raise revenues. Pass the fair tax and make the amount of tax rebate that each person gets a level that will allow them to live off of it at a minimal standard of living, and it would take away the incentive to do nothing and sit around collecting welfare. You'd be guaranteed the minimum amount of money, and it wouldn't be at risk of being taken away if you decided to better your life and work a little. There'd be no hidden taxes, and no penalties for making "too much" money, and no reason to squirrel your money away in useless tax shelters.

That's one option I agree with - flat tax on everything over some percentage of the median income for a region (minimum amount to survive in Seattle being higher than the minimum to survive in Phoenix).

I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee.

dentalhilljack:I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have. True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.

What pisses me off even more than a tax & spender or a social conservative, though, is the tea party types suddenly claiming a "libertarian" viewpoint when 90% of the tea party would shoot a queer or colored boy on sight. You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes without accepting that your wanting to live free from interference means that mixed race gay couple in town also gets to live free from interference. If Obama wasn't elected you would still be worshiping at the altar of Karl Rove and not yelling about a rapidly expanding debt, even though W added the second-highest amount to it.

I agree with your post, you stated things much better than I could have since I'm a rambly little farker. I, like you am not 100%, dyed in the wool, radical libertarian, but I am a registered Libertarian. Could never get down with either the Dems or Repubs, never been registered with either party. I chose to register Libertarian because I tend to really like the folks that they support running for office, at least in Colorado. If the Libertarians have a caucus for the mid-terms in my state, I would like to be able to participate. That's something I wouldn't be able to do if I was registered Unaffiliated. Oh, and the Tea Partiers may go fly a kite-they have very little business comparing themselves to the majority of Libertarians I know, and I do know a few, seems like the party is growing by leaps and bounds and you know what they say, the bigger the village, the more idiots there are. Every party has it's share of morons contained within it.

Exception Collection:I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee.

More people would support that if they could do the basic math and understand what that means. Unfortunately the people who would be negatively affected by that also happen to be the ones making the rules, so there's that too...

Revek:I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

.... in the minds of idiots who don't understand liberals OR conservatives.

GoldSpider:Exception Collection: I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee.

More people would support that if they could do the basic math and understand what that means. Unfortunately the people who would be negatively affected by that also happen to be the ones making the rules, so there's that too...

Tying to lowest paid employee makes no sense - legislatively or business-wise. Tying to average, sure. But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason (as exists in any sufficiently large business), tying anyone's salary to an outlier among 100,000 employees is silly. It makes far more sense to lock to averages among a diverse population. It promotes more equitable treatment of your employees as well - they're worried about more than just the number of the guy at the bottom. They have to deal with everyone.

Khellendros:But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason

If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less. The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.

GoldSpider:Khellendros: But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason

If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less. The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.

I didn't say "relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable". Read what I wrote - it's very likely in a large company that you have a small group of employees that work jobs that are rightfully paid at minimum wage. The number is likely very small. If a company's execs only have to be concerned with making sure the bottom wage earner (note, singular) in the company are at a high enough level to keep exec salaries high, they have no incentive to help their entire workforce. Tying it to average helps to keep everyone in a good position, particularly the bulk of employees in the lower wage levels (but well above minimum).

Tying to average helps everyone. Tying to minimum helps two people - the CEO and the one guy at the bottom. That's it.

liam76:I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior. I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.

Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.

The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.

/money is power

//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

unlikely:It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.

Libertarian discussions often turn into "more libertarian than thou". If you put 5 libertarians in a room, the once closest to Anarcho-capitalist will complain that he is in a room with 4 statist drones, the one closest to Republican/Democrat will complain that he is in a room with Minarchists, and the other three will shake their heads at how everyone else in the room is naive about how the world works.

ciberido:Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government. I get no money for my autistic son. No money for my disabling medical condition including no medical help at all. I make half the median income for the state. The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity. We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves. They expect someone else to pay for it. Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

.... in the minds of idiots who don't understand liberals OR conservatives.

But that's ok. After all, libertarianism makes you stupid. It happens.

rvesco:Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive. You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses? You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country? You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land? Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations? Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet? You defend your own land with your own army? You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards? You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service? You've never called the police for anything? Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government. I salute you, citizen. You're a beacon to all of us.

TRANSLATION: We have already socialized society and are winning the war. Surrender, Libertarians!

If by "surrender" you mean "stop being deluded, selfish idiots," then sure.

Usurper4:mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

Not to the same extreme, at least with Democrats and Republicans. (I really can't speak to most of the rest of your examples.)

With regards to Lieberman, he was consistantly told, "You know that's not part of our platform, right?" and continued to ignore that, was eventually disavowed, and then switched to Independant (largely because he lost a primary, but wanted to continue to be in the Senate). He was to the right of even many Republicans on several issues. The Democratic Party, honestly, was never the best fit for him, but it's what got him elected for many years.

With RINOs, it's important to note that this particular pejorative came from extreme, ideologically "pure" members of the Republican party. It was a way to drive out the moderates in the party, not because they weren't Republican, but because they were insufficiently Republican. The Club for Growth pushed it as a way to get more of their candidates through primaries; a policy which often backfired, as the candidate could win the primary, but was unable to take the positions necessary to win the general election.

In both those cases, though, the targets of those didn't (and don't) turn around and say, "well, you're not a [blank], either". Which is not the case with Libertarians.

The Libertarian factions have so many differences that most (or even all) proclaim themselves to be the "true" Libertarians, and the others to be "not real Libertarians".

Now hear me out. They made all this hoopla over this being "their land", and they even killed US citizens over it. They pretended they didn't need the US government.

Look at them today: they live on government reservations, get healthcare, free education, roads, government military defense, the whole deal. A clear case of hypocrisy. If they weren't hypocrites, they would take back their lands and not live under our rule, and do their own thing.

So obviously the American Indians were full of shiat all along. My ad hominem argument demonstrates they were clearly, logically, wrong.

/part Native American//radical libertarian///"If you're not taking flak, you're not over the target."

Neighborhood Watch:If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.

Instead, Libertarians get their government handouts in the form of farm subsidies, salaries paid by government organizations, defense contracts for weapons systems that the military doesn't even want, veterans benefits, medicare ("Keep your government hands off my medicare!"), etc.

GoldSpider:Khellendros: But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason

If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less. The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.

Perhaps. But that's something that the shareholders should determine, not some arbitrary ratio.

LasersHurt:liam76: I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior. I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.

Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.

You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

drp:In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco. And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid. But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.

That's part of a (certain type of) libertarian US, sure . But the downside would be that in a (certain type of) libertarian US, if that couple was a gay black couple, every Hotel in Omaha might be legally be able to say "no coloreds" (because right-thinking people will just totes boycott bigoted entrepreneurs), and while on their honeymoon in San Francisco they would end up eating an e coli and prion infested steak (but that's OK. Once word gets around, that restaurant and supplier will both go out of business and more responsible ones will take their place.

Most versions of libertarian style governance require far more symmetrical information than is available currently, and typically assumes a standard of living, and the amount of free time that around 80% of the country simply does not have.

That's not to say that libertarian thought doesn't have it's place. Especially when it comes to protectionist nonsense regarding corporate licensing, government bloat, privacy rights and civil liberties. But far too much of the ideal libertarian city/state/country seems to be populated by people who assume that everyone there will behave like and have access to the same resources as your average upper-middle class white male.

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

liam76:LasersHurt: liam76: I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior. I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.

Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.

You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

mithras_angel:Usurper4: mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.

This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

Not to the same extreme, at least with Democrats and Republicans. (I really can't speak to most of the rest of your examples.)

With regards to Lieberman, he was consistantly told, "You know that's not part of our platform, right?" and continued to ignore that, was eventually disavowed, and then switched to Independant (largely because he lost a primary, but wanted to continue to be in the Senate). He was to the right of even many Republicans on several issues. The Democratic Party, honestly, was never the best fit for him, but it's what got him elected for many years.

With RINOs, it's important to note that this particular pejorative came from extreme, ideologically "pure" members of the Republican party. It was a way to drive out the moderates in the party, not because they weren't Republican, but because they were insufficiently Republican. The Club for Growth pushed it as a way to get more of their candidates through primaries; a policy which often backfired, as the candidate could win the primary ...

It's also easier to cast out the alleged impurities when you are in a party that holds power in your state/city, whatever. Libertarians are content to cast out allies even before they have any real power (and yet too-often oddly reluctant to cast out the racists who use libertarianism as a cover).

Garble:The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.

/money is power

//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money. So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?

The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Phil McKraken:The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Right. Also people who would hire for their small business, but instead they'll turn down hundreds of thousands in guaranteed revenue because they can't afford to hire two guys making $18/hour. Thanks Obama!

Voiceofreason01:Kome: My individual experiences are sufficient to formulate policies that should be in place to dictate to a country of 320,000,000 other people what they should expect from their government.

my individual experience is that libertarians are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

"Fark you, I've got mine" sums it up nicely

My individual experience is that statists are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify violently forcing others to fund their pet projects in social control.

"Fark you, I don't have to play nice, I just take what I want" sums it up nicely.

Lawyers With Nukes:Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence./money is power//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money.

So far so good.

So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?/not sure if you're serious

More like, let's balance the power of people through democracy. The fact that there is so much money in government is a failing of that principle.